coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kyiv.
5.  On 15 November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv against the Doktor Aibolit Private Clinic seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused to her by inappropriate dental treatment. Mr S., the doctor who had treated the applicant, joined the proceedings as a third party.
6.  On 14 December 2000 the court ordered a forensic examination, which was completed in July 2001.
7.  On 26 September 2001 Mr S. lodged a counter-claim against the applicant seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused to his reputation. On an unspecified date the counter-claim was disjoined from the proceedings.
8.  On 30 April 2002 the court found against the applicant.
9.  On 23 September 2002, following an appeal by the applicant, the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the same court for fresh consideration.
10.  On 21 November 2002 the applicant requested the court to join the Cabot Private Clinic to the case as a co-defendant. On an unspecified date that request was granted.
11.  On 3 July 2003 the Podilskyy Court declined to consider the applicant's claim because she had failed to appear before the court on that day.
12.  On 11 September 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.
13.  On 1 June 2005, following an appeal in cassation by the applicant, the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 3 July and 11 September 2003 and remitted the case for fresh consideration on the merits to the Podilskyy Court.
14.  On 11 May 2007 the Podilskyy Court rejected the applicant's claims as unsubstantiated.
15.  On 11 June 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal.
16.  On 19 March 2009 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 11 May 2007.
17.   On 7 August 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.
18.  The applicant modified her claims on three occasions and lodged several requests which concerned various procedural matters, including audio recording of hearings, withdrawal of judges, securing of evidence and so on. Out of thirty-five hearings held in the course of the proceedings, nine were adjourned on account of the absence of a judge, three were adjourned because of the unavailability of audio equipment used to record hearings, two were adjourned at the request of the applicant, five were adjourned owing to the defendants' failure to appear, one was adjourned owing to both parties' failure to appear, and two were adjourned owing to witnesses' failure to appear.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Zaporizhzhya, Ukraine.
5.  On 9 March 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in connection with several straightforward episodes of smuggling goods to Ukraine.
6.  In the period from 9 March 1998 to 22 May 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mrs T., Mrs K. and four other persons in connection with the same episodes.
7.  On 8 May 1998 the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond.
8.  On 30 July 1998, while undergoing a course of treatment in a hospital, the applicant was arrested and remained under arrest in the hospital. On 28 August 1998 the applicant finished his treatment. On the same date he was placed in custody.
9.  On 11 August 1998 the proceedings against the applicant, Mrs T. and Mrs K. were joined.
10.  On 7 September 1998 the case was transferred to the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court[1] for examination. On 12 May 1999 it sentenced the applicant to five years and six months' imprisonment.
11.  On 16 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court on the ground that the latter had failed to examine all the circumstances of the case. On 16 March 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court sentenced the applicant to one year, seven months and sixteen days' imprisonment. Since the applicant had already spent an equivalent time in prison he was considered to have served his sentence. By the same judgment the court placed the applicant under an obligation not to abscond. On the same date the applicant was released.
12.  On 1 June 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 16 March 2000 and remitted the case to the prosecutor's office for further investigation.
13.  On 25 December 2000 the further investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya.
14.  On 15 October 2001 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. The applicant was exempted from serving his sentence under the Amnesty Act. By the same judgment the court released the applicant from the undertaking not to abscond.
15.  On 10 December 2001 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of appeal, upheld that judgment.
16.  On 8 October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 10 December 2001 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the court of appeal since the latter had failed to consider the applicant's appeal in a due manner.
17.  On 18 December 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 15 October 2001 and remitted the case for further investigation to the prosecutor's office.
18.  On 17 September 2003 the case was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya.
19.  On 24 September 2003 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant since the charges against him had become time-barred. On 16 February 2004 and 17 May 2005 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld that ruling.
4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  In 1950 the State seized under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation the building situated in Bucharest, Cobălcescu no. 36, property of the applicant's ancestor.
6.  On 1 June 1999 company R.V., a State-owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, sold a 104,98 sq. m. flat of the building and the appurtenant land to the tenants, V.D and D.M., under Law no. 112/1995.
7.  On 20 November 2002, the applicant sought annulment of the contract before the Bucharest Court of First Instance requesting the court to declare the nationalisation of her property unlawful and to order its return to her.
8.  On 9 September 2005, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in the operative part of a final decision, dismissed as groundless an appeal on points of law by the applicant. In the reasoning of the judgment the court considered that although the seizure was null and void the bona fide principle should apply to the tenants who bought the flat from the State, who at that time was its legal owner.
9.  On an unknown date the applicant lodged an application with the administrative authorities for restitution in kind of the property under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. Since she had not received any answer, she brought court proceedings against the Mayor of Bucharest seeking to have him ordered to issue a reasoned decision upon her request. She also claimed a daily pecuniary penalty until execution.
10.  On 25 January 2007 the Bucharest County Court upheld in part her action and ordered the Mayor to issue a reasoned decision regarding the restitution of the building located in Bucharest, Cobălcescu no. 36 as the applicant requested. On 22 May 2007 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the Mayor appeal. There is no evidence in the file as to the course of the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Batman.
5.  On 12 October 1995 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. On 25 October 1995 she was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered her detention on remand.
6.  On 29 November 1995 the Istanbul State Security Court Public Prosecutor declared a lack of jurisdiction and transferred the case file to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
7.  On 29 December 1995 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court accusing her, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
8.  The trial commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the subsequent hearings, the court refused to release the applicant on account of the nature of the alleged offence and the state of evidence.
9.  On 12 June 2001 the applicant submitted a petition to the Diyarbakır State Security Court, alleging that she had been ill-treated during police custody.
10.  The case against the applicant continued before the Diyarbakır State Security Court until 7 May 2004 when, following a constitutional amendment, State Security Courts were abolished. Thereafter, the applicant's case was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
11.  On 3 November 2004 the applicant was released pending trial.
12.  On 26 January 2005 the Diyarbakır Assize Court declared its lack of jurisdiction and transferred the applicant's case to the Diyarbakır Juvenile Court, holding that the applicant had been a minor at the time of the events.
13.  On an unspecified date, the Diyarbakır Juvenile Court also declared its non-jurisdiction and the case file was then transferred to the Batman Assize Court.
14.  9 May 2005 the Batman Assize Court declared a lack of jurisdiction and transmitted the case file to the Court of Cassation to resolve the jurisdictional conflict.
15.  On 17 October 2006 the Court of Cassation decided that the case should be heard by the Batman Assize Court.
16.  On 4 December 2007 the Batman Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against her.
17.  Subsequently, the applicant applied to the Midyat Assize Court seeking compensation for both non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unjustifiably arrested or detained. On 24 April 2008 the Midyat Assize Court awarded the applicant 11,881 Turkish[1] liras (TRY) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 10,000[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. According to the information submitted by the applicant, the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation, following her appeal, and she has not yet received the due amount.
4.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Miercurea Ciuc.
5.  The applicant lodged a complaint under Law 18/1991 for the recovery of 1.45 hectares of land that had belonged to her ancestor, N.L. In 2001 the Harghita County Commission for the application of Law 18/1991 rejected the applicant's complaint for restitution of the land and established her entitlement to damages.
6.  The decision of the Commission was challenged by the applicant before the Miercurea Ciuc District Court. By a judgment of 14 October 2004, the applicant's claim was dismissed. An appeal filed by the applicant was allowed and by a decision of 22 March 2005 the Harghita County Court ordered the restitution of 1.45 ha of land situated in Szeradai Rat.
7.  By a final decision of 30 November 2005, the Târgu-Mureş Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law filed by the local commission and ordered the restitution of other land on the original site of 9,300 square meters and the payment of damages for the 5,200 sq. m of land that could not be returned.
8.   So far the applicant has not received any title deed to the 9,300 sq. m of land and has not obtained any compensation for the remaining 5,200 sq. m.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Tri Protoka in the Astrakhan Region.
5.  On 6 December 2003 the applicant was dismissed from his position in a private company. He sued his former employer claiming reinstatement in the position and damages.
6.  On 11 March 2004 the Krasnoyarskiy District Court of Astrakhan rejected his claims.
7.  On 8 June 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court set it aside on appeal, reinstated the applicant in his position and awarded him 157,427.98 Russian roubles (RUB) of outstanding salary, RUB 5,000 of non-pecuniary damages and RUB 4,000 of legal fees. The appeal judgment became final and enforceable on the same date.
8.  On 28 June 2004 the defendant company lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal judgment of 8 June 2004. On 12 July 2004 the local public prosecutor, who had earlier participated in the proceedings, lodged a similar application.
9.  On 3 August 2004 a judge of the Astrakhan Regional Court referred the case to its Presidium.
10.  On 18 August 2004 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court, having heard the parties and the prosecutor, quashed the appeal judgment of 8 June 2004 and reinstated the judgment of 11 March 2004, on the grounds that the appeal court had made wrong findings of fact.
4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Syzran, Samara Region.
5.  On 14 June 1994 the applicant opened a deposit account with a bank at 190% per annum for ten years on behalf of her granddaughter, a minor at the material time (she was born in 1986).
6.  Subsequently the bank decreased the interest rate down to 16% and the applicant brought proceedings against it claiming the decrease unlawful.
7.  On 21 April 2003 the Syzran Town Court of the Samara Region granted the applicant's claim in part, ordering the bank to make payments on the basis of the interest rate of 85% per annum.
8.  On 2 June 2003 the Samara Regional Court amended the judgment on appeal and granted the applicant's claims in full, ordering the bank to maintain the interest rate in accordance with the initial conditions of the deposit, namely 190% per annum. The appeal judgment became final on the same date.
9.  After the deposit period expired on 18 June 2004, the appeal judgment was enforced and the applicant's granddaughter received the required sums.
10.  However, on the bank's initiative, on 20 January 2005 the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court quashed the previous judgments via supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration, on the grounds that the lower courts had made errors in applying the domestic law.
11.  On 7 February 2005 the town court dismissed the applicant's claim.
12.  On 14 March 2005 the Samara Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
13.  On an unspecified date the bank was awarded back the sums paid to the applicant's granddaughter.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On 22 October 1997 the applicant, who worked in a private company at the material time, had an accident during working hours that led to his partial disability.
6.  On 19 June 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Ankara Labour Court against his employer, requesting compensation for the pecuniary damage he had suffered as a result of the accident.
7.  On 30 April 2003 the applicant lodged another action with the same court against his employer, this time requesting compensation for non‑pecuniary damage.
8.  On 27 May 2003 the court joined two cases.
9.  During the proceedings the first-instance court postponed the hearings awaiting information and documents from a number of State authorities, such as the public prosecutor's office and the Social Security Institution, as well as the reports of experts appointed by the court.
10.  On 21 June 2004 the Ankara Labour Court partially accepted the applicant's claims and awarded him compensation for non-pecuniary damage, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from the date of the incident.
11.  On 4 November 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court.
12.  In his submissions of 4 August 2008 and 29 May 2009, the applicant informed the Court that he had filed a case with the Ankara Labour Court against the company, requesting additional compensation (munzam zarar) for the damage he had sustained as a result of the delay in payment. This case was dismissed on 21 April 2009.
13.  In his letter of 7 August 2009 to the Court, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the courts' refusal to grant him additional compensation violated his right to property.
14.  The applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was separated from the present application and was registered under application no. 53791/09.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  On 12 July 2002 the applicant rented out his flat to M.
6.  On 26 September 2002 M. allegedly forgot to turn off water in the bathroom and thus damaged neighbouring flats of Sh. and A.
7.  Subsequently M. compensated damages to Sh., but refused to pay A., considering the sums claimed excessive.
8.  On 20 November 2002 A. brought proceedings against the applicant for damages. M. took part in the proceedings as a co‑defendant.
9.  On 12 November 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 3rd Court Circuit ordered the applicant to pay A. 40,983 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and to pay the authorities RUB 1,639.49 of legal costs.
10.  The applicant lodged an appeal and on 28 April 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh quashed the judgment, found that there was no fault by the applicant in the damage caused to the A.'s flat and awarded A. RUB 15,261 from M.
11.  On 27 August 2004 A. lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal judgment.
12.  On 14 February 2005 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court quashed that appeal judgment and upheld the judgment of 12 November 2003. The Presidium reassessed the evidence and found that though on 25 September 2002 the applicant concluded an agreement under which he should have obtained the right of property to the flat, this right was duly registered only on 10 April 2003. Therefore before that date the applicant could not rent out his flat to anyone. Thus he remained the flat's sole de jure owner and should have been responsible for it.
13.  On 7 Mach 2007 the applicant transferred to the bailiffs RUB 42,322.49 in accordance with the Presidium decision of 14 February 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Arkhangelsk.
5.  The applicant sued a private company for salary arrears.
6.  By judgment of 16 March 2004, the Justice of Peace in the Varavino-Faktoriya Circuit awarded the applicant 92,073.93 Russian roubles (RUB) against the defendant company.
7.  The defendant company appealed.
8.  On 16 June 2004, both parties being present in the court-room, the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk adjourned the hearing until 13 July 2004, which was noted in the minutes. The parties were also notified about the hearing of 13 July 2004 by post, in accordance with the domestic law. However, the court made a mistake in the defendant company's address, which never received the summons.
9.  On 13 July 2004 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, in the absence of the defendant company's representative, upheld the judgment on appeal.
10.  The defendant company applied for supervisory review of the above judgments. On 21 September 2004 a judge in the Arkhangelsk Regional Court granted it leave for supervisory review. On 29 September 2004 the Presidium of the Regional Court set aside the judgment of 13 July 2004 and ordered a re-examination of the case by the District Court on the grounds that the defendant company had not been informed about the hearing of 13 July 2004. The Presidium found that though the defendant company's representative was present in the court-room when the district court adjourned the hearing to 13 July 2004, the defendant company could not be considered as duly informed about it.
11.  On 26 January 2005 the District Court quashed the judgment of 16 March 2004 and awarded the applicant RUB 38,123.85.
5.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1939, 1965 and 1963 respectively and live in Novosemeykino, Samara Region.
6.  The applicants are owners of two vehicles. Following the refusal of the Samara Region State Inspectorate for Road Safety (ОГИБДД по Самарской области) (the “Inspectorate”) to register their property title to the vehicles, in October 2000 the applicants brought judicial proceedings against the Inspectorate.
7.  On 7 May 2003 the Samarskiy District Court of Samara found for the applicants and ordered the Inspectorate to register their title to the vehicles. On 9 June 2003 the Samara Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
8.  On 30 June 2003 the writ of execution was sent to one of the applicants, Mr Yuriy Belyayev, who however did not receive it. On 8 August 2003 the writ was sent to him for the second time, and Mr Yuriy Belyayev received it on 9 August 2003.
9.  On 29 May 2006 the enforcement proceedings were opened at the applicants' request.
10.  On 31 August 2006 the Inspectorate informed the bailiff that it could not register the applicants' title and that the writ of execution should be sent to a special state body responsible for vehicles' registration (Samara Inter‑District Department of Registration and Examination – Межрайонный регистрационно-экзаменационный отдел г. Самары). On the same day the bailiff asked the court to accordingly change the debtor in the enforcement proceedings.  On 20 September 2006 the Samara District Court of Samara granted the request.
11.  On 30 November 2006 the same court, on the bailiff's initiative, ordered the enforcement proceedings to be discontinued. The applicants appealed, claiming that they had not been duly informed about the proceedings, and on 27 August 2007 the Samara Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 26 September 2007 the Samara District Court rejected the bailiff's request to discontinue the enforcement proceedings. The decision came into force on 10 October 2007.
12.  On 27 June 2008 the applicants' title to one of the vehicles was duly registered.
13.  On 28 June 2008 the applicants informed the bailiff of their decision not to register their title to the second vehicle on the grounds that it had become worthless.
14.  On 24 November 2008 the enforcement proceedings were closed.
4.  The applicant company is a Romanian commercial company whose registered office is in Braşov. It is represented before the Court by its sole shareholder and administrator, Mr Gheorghe Vlădău.
5.  By a judgment of 11 October 2002, the Braşov District Court allowed the applicant company's claim for damages against another commercial company for non-compliance with its contractual obligations.
6.  On 6 February 2003, the Braşov Court of Appeal upheld the judgment by a final decision.
7.  On 2 July 2003, the Procurator-General filed an extraordinary appeal with the High Court of Cassation and Justice to have the final decision quashed (recurs în anulare) on the ground that the Braşov Court of Appeal's decision contained an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law. The Procurator-General stated that the penalty clause in favour of the applicant company was not valid.
8.  In a decision of 3 December 2003, the High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed the extraordinary appeal, quashed the final decision of 6 February 2003 and the judgment of 11 October 2002 and, as a result, rejected the applicant company's action, for the reason given by the Procurator-General.